Ad group: FTC blog rules unfairly muzzle online media

There are many questions about the Federal Trade Commission's new guidelines …

The Federal Trade Commission's new "blogger rules" may be unconstitutional, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau. The IAB, one of the Internet's largest advertising organizations, published an open letter to the FTC Friday urging it to rescind the rules because of their "dubious" differentiation between online and offline media and how they dance around the First Amendment protections of the media.

The FTC announced its controversial guidelines earlier this month, essentially saying that bloggers must explicitly disclose if they are being compensated by a manufacturer, advertiser, or service provider when they review an item. The penalty for not complying could be up to $11,000 per violation with the possibility of injunctions to boot, although the FTC makes it clear that the fines are a last resort.

On the surface, this sounds great—why wouldn't everyday readers want to know when a blogger is essentially being "paid off"? The issue is quite a bit more complex, however, than it seems. For one, book and magazine publishers often send free product to journalists just to get it in front of their eyes without the expectation of a good (or even any) review. Also, what happens with software, which can't be returned to the company like review units might be? And what about review units that are sent but not returned for a long period of time?

These are all questions that the media has been mulling over the last several weeks, but the most prominent question has been why there is such a clear distinction between online and offline media. That's right: the FTC's guidelines only apply to the Internet, with traditional media not falling under the same rules.

This is the bone that the IAB has chosen to pick—IAB President and CEO Randall Rothenberg aggressively criticized the FTC for not accepting its invitation to discuss the guidelines in advance with bloggers and social media executives. "Commission staff did not follow up with us on our offer, held no public hearings on the proposed Guides, and ultimately dismissed our concerns," Rothenberg wrote. "Instead, they took the perverse—and Constitutionally dubious—step of saying that individuals writing in social media bear greater liability than do those writing for offline, one-way media."

The reason Rothenberg, the IAB, and the Internet at large consider the guidelines to be questionable under the Constitution is because of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech without government restriction, especially for that of the press. Additionally, because there are no rules for what qualifies "press" (this is also part of the First Amendment; In 1938, a Supreme Court justice defined the press as "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion"), the fact that the FTC has made a distinction between old and new media at all is, well, dubious.

"What concerns us the most in these revisions is that the Internet, the cheapest, most widely accessible communications medium ever invented, would have less freedom than other media," Rothenberg said. "The practices have long been afforded strong First Amendment protections in traditional media outlets, but the Commission is saying that the same speech deserves fewer Constitutional protections online. I urge the Commission to retract the current set of Guides and to commence a fair and open process in order to develop a roadmap by which responsible online actors can engage with consumers and continue to provide the invaluable content and services that have so transformed people’s lives."

The rules are currently scheduled to take effect as of December 1, 2009.

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

Originally posted by Zyrxil:"Fine, everyone, print or online, has to disclose any compensation before a review, including whether they received the item for free." Done and done.

That's the first thing that came to my mind too and I agree.

I really don't see any problem. There is nothing about these rules which prevents any product from being fairly advertised and reviewed. All that it does is help assist with the prevention of bias and corrupt reviews. Everyone already knows and accepts that those who review products get samples that they usually get to keep. What the public really wants to know is whether or not the reviewers/bloggers/etc are getting compensated beyond that.

Am I missing something? Who loses here other than those are currently abusing the system? Is there anyone that profits from these new rules other than the consumers and reviewers/bloggers that already play fair?

So the IAP is saying that undisclosed gifts and compensation to bloggers (or even journalists in general) is "protected speech" the same way bribes and lobbyist favors to politicians are "protected speech"?

This is sorta like the royalty debate for internet radio vs. terrestrial radio. Apparently, the government thinks that since the internet is the "wild west" it needs more regulation that institutions that have existed for the last 70 years and are now fading into the limelight due to overwhelming ubiquitous access to free or near free alternatives online. I understand the desire to "protect" these traditional sources of information, but they either need to evolve or go extinct...

I wasn't aware the first amendment protected the right of people to get paid for saying a specific thing. In other words, remove the hidden influence of the company making a product, and people are still free to speak. They might say something different without that influence but they haven't been muzzled.

They aren't even saying you can't get paid for saying a specific thing but that the relationship must be disclosed.

Originally posted by mathrockbrock:So the IAP is saying that undisclosed gifts and compensation to bloggers (or even journalists in general) is "protected speech" the same way bribes and lobbyist favors to politicians are "protected speech"?

They're saying that the First Amendment says the government can't say a certain group of people have to say something while another group of people don't have to say it.

The issue is quite a bit more complex, however, than it seems. For one, book and magazine publishers often send free product to journalists just to get it in front of their eyes without the expectation of a good (or even any) review. Also, what happens with software, which can't be returned to the company like review units might be? And what about review units that are sent but not returned for a long period of time?

Really? Coming from someone presumably affected by the new rules, that comes accross as a bit whiny. Why is it a big deal to say that you received a free copy of the item in question in any of those situations?

I agree with the posters above that this should just apply to all product reviews if it applies to anyone. Though honestly I don't care that much about reviewers receiving a free product, so I think it's a bit silly to put regulations on this.

Originally posted by severusx:This is sorta like the royalty debate for internet radio vs. terrestrial radio. Apparently, the government thinks that since the internet is the "wild west" it needs more regulation that institutions that have existed for the last 70 years and are now fading into the limelight due to overwhelming ubiquitous access to free or near free alternatives online. I understand the desire to "protect" these traditional sources of information, but they either need to evolve or go extinct...

I'm still slightly confused why Internet Radio got 'performance' fees attached that Regular Radio didn't have to pay, and now comes news that Regular Radio will have to pay them too. So there is a big parallel between radio and blogging, where the Feds are finally playing fair by screwing everyone the same way. I'm SURE that overwhelming greed has won again...

Originally posted by Naame:I really don't see any problem. There is nothing about these rules which prevents any product from being fairly advertised and reviewed. All that it does is help assist with the prevention of bias and corrupt reviews.

First amendment issues aside, this regulation is idiotic. Look at it this way- if I review a product that I got a copy of, I have to let everyone know. On the other hand, if I'm writing a review for a product that I've never actually used, then I can just say I never received a review copy (which is true), and the FTC thinks that's good for consumers.

We don't need FTC regulations, we need people to do some critical thinking and use due diligence.

Originally posted by ignignokt:Though honestly I don't care that much about reviewers receiving a free product, so I think it's a bit silly to put regulations on this.

It's a slippery slope. If it's a video game or a CD then I'd agree with you but what about the guy reviewing cars or boats?

What about them? Honestly, how hard would it be for them to state in their review that they went to a local car/boat emporium and requested a test drive for the review? Or, that xxx company provided a car/boat for a few days of usage? Or, even stating that xxx company gave the reviewer a car/boat to keep?

This regulation costs nobody extra money (it's just stating facts in the review), doesn't even state that reviewers have to stop getting gifts, and gives readers some perspective to work from. How is that possibly anything but a win for pretty much everyone involved (except those that are actually paid shills, of course)?

It's sleazy to avoid full disclosure, but do we really need the full force of the federal government potentially applying fines to do this? This is incredibly heavy-handed. It opens up ridiculous paths for unelected bureaucrats to control public speech.

Are you really that worried about shills? There are plenty of websites out there with reviews.

For one, book and magazine publishers often send free product to journalists just to get it in front of their eyes without the expectation of a good (or even any) review.

This is a red herring. Regarding the blogger rules, they are intended for products/services actually reviewed in an online review. Not about products sent in the expectation of a review - one that may or may not happen. And, if a print reviewer reviews an item, most of them do disclose if the item was sent as a gift or as a review item that was returned. You send me an iPhone and I don't review it, who cares?

quote:

Also, what happens with software, which can't be returned to the company like review units might be?

Huh? You mean reviews where reviewers are provided beta software (i.e., not final)? Which is really pretty much the only stuff that gets reviewed (see, for example, Windows 7).

quote:

And what about review units that are sent but not returned for a long period of time?

Again, huh? Who cares? You send me an iPhone. After a year, I get around to writing a review/blog about it and return it. I still say I got a loaner in the review.

Honestly, none of these touch on any good reason for bloggers not to state right up front "here's my review of the WinMacux OS that WinMacux kindly gave to me" or "loaned to me to review".

In the end, it serves both their readers, themselves, and the company providing the product/service with a clearer understanding of the review and any possible bias. Bias can be a good thing, too.

I've yet to see any valid reason why disclosure would be harmful. To anyone.

Given the industry-funded experts that are invited to regurgitate talking points in the nightly news before an audience that counted in hundreds of thousands, it interesting that the FTC wants to focus on disclosures by bloggers that might get an audience of thousands if lucky.

I don't care about what they do on line, I just want them to muzzle the info-mercials on TV. Like that guy that does that colon cleansing stuff, a 16 oz bottle of gator aide mixed with four tablespoons of baking soda does the same thing (although probably a little more "violently" and quickly).

Originally posted by ignignokt:Though honestly I don't care that much about reviewers receiving a free product, so I think it's a bit silly to put regulations on this.

It's a slippery slope. If it's a video game or a CD then I'd agree with you but what about the guy reviewing cars or boats?

That's getting a bit extended for a slippery slope; how about a couple that don't stretch quite as far?

* Instead of cheap software/peripherals, go to the expensive stuff - a keyboard may not be a big deal, but how about a $200+ Rock Band/Beatles set with instruments? A $400 netbook? A $1200 30" monitor?

* Worse, how about expensive hardware that's just an 'adjunct' to the reviewed item? Remember the furor a year or two ago when Microsoft sent a group of bloggers a copy of Vista for review, loaded on a high-end laptop that didn't have to be returned?

* Or instead of an expensive laptop, it's "Come to our new product release party in Hawaii, where you can review our game in our custom hi-end gaming theater, all expenses paid!"? See, the item itself doesn't even have to be expensive to have payola potential...

Originally posted by mathrockbrock:So the IAP is saying that undisclosed gifts and compensation to bloggers (or even journalists in general) is "protected speech" the same way bribes and lobbyist favors to politicians are "protected speech"?

They're saying that the First Amendment says the government can't say a certain group of people have to say something while another group of people don't have to say it.

If that's really all there is to it, then of course I agree with most others here that it should apply to either everyone, or no one.

What I was trying to get at was the nuances of what qualifies as speech and to what degree we expect disclosure out of reviewers, journalists, and politicians, who all take up the role of informing the public. I doubt many people would agree on where to draw the line on potential biasing gifts/compensation and where to draw one for heavy-handed disclosure rules.

Does Ars have a policy on this for its writers? I know Ben sometimes posts about the weird things game companies send him, in a self-aware sense that they're succeeding in getting him to fulfill exactly what they want...

Originally posted by Naame:I really don't see any problem. There is nothing about these rules which prevents any product from being fairly advertised and reviewed. All that it does is help assist with the prevention of bias and corrupt reviews.

First amendment issues aside, this regulation is idiotic. Look at it this way- if I review a product that I got a copy of, I have to let everyone know. On the other hand, if I'm writing a review for a product that I've never actually used, then I can just say I never received a review copy (which is true), and the FTC thinks that's good for consumers.

We don't need FTC regulations, we need people to do some critical thinking and use due diligence.

Caveat Emptor.

I agree with the FTC. I think that is good for consumers too. "Critical thinking" does not allow me to peer into a reviewer's bank account to see if they were paid off to write a particular review. Considering how much reviews on the internet impact sales these days, I'd say it is at least worth trying out. Perhaps we should attach a time bomb to the regulation so that it is reevaluated within say...3 years? How about that?

I've written more than a few reviews of video games and PC hardware. In each and every review, I made sure to include the source of the product being reviewed. It takes only one sentence and not a log or complex one, at that. Almost all PC hardware review sites do this for their reviews, there is no reason bloggers should be any different.

The First Amendment reference is pointless, as paid posts are the same as advertisements, not free speech. Advertisements are heavily regulated in other forms of media and should be just as heavily regulated online, as well.

The issue is quite a bit more complex, however, than it seems. For one, book and magazine publishers often send free product to journalists just to get it in front of their eyes without the expectation of a good (or even any) review. Also, what happens with software, which can't be returned to the company like review units might be? And what about review units that are sent but not returned for a long period of time?

Really? Coming from someone presumably affected by the new rules, that comes accross as a bit whiny. Why is it a big deal to say that you received a free copy of the item in question in any of those situations?

I agree with the posters above that this should just apply to all product reviews if it applies to anyone. Though honestly I don't care that much about reviewers receiving a free product, so I think it's a bit silly to put regulations on this.

The regs are very broadly written. right now if your mom posts that she loves her new Kindle and forgets to mention she received it as a gift, the feds can come after her. Right now they're promising not to, but do you really enjoy the idea of "3 felonies a day"coming true because you don't think they'll come after you?

Making something done broadly as custom (declaring the source of the item in review) into a law is a terrible idea. MotorTrends says "X gave us this test car to review" in their articles, but does that make it right to make them face civil and criminal penalties if they forget it?

Have technology people online always been so eager for regulation? When did people suddenly have to have people tell them what to do? I thought years ago that the Linux movement was about doing things your own way or forming a group to impliment new ideas, if the greater community likes it, they use it, else it dies on the vine. Now it seems like every online regulation that comes along gets cheered. What happened to the fight the power and push for freedom on here?

The regs are very broadly written. right now if your mom posts that she loves her new Kindle and forgets to mention she received it as a gift, the feds can come after her. Right now they're promising not to, but do you really enjoy the idea of "3 felonies a day"coming true because you don't think they'll come after you?

Uh, perhaps you're missing something. We're talking about a product being given to a writer with the intent as payment for them to write a review. Unless your Mom runs a popular Book club blog, received the Kindle from Amazon and only wrote the review to receive the Kindle, I'm pretty sure she's safe from prosecution.

The issue is quite a bit more complex, however, than it seems. For one, book and magazine publishers often send free product to journalists just to get it in front of their eyes without the expectation of a good (or even any) review. Also, what happens with software, which can't be returned to the company like review units might be? And what about review units that are sent but not returned for a long period of time?

Really? Coming from someone presumably affected by the new rules, that comes accross as a bit whiny. Why is it a big deal to say that you received a free copy of the item in question in any of those situations?

I agree with the posters above that this should just apply to all product reviews if it applies to anyone. Though honestly I don't care that much about reviewers receiving a free product, so I think it's a bit silly to put regulations on this.

The regs are very broadly written. right now if your mom posts that she loves her new Kindle and forgets to mention she received it as a gift, the feds can come after her. Right now they're promising not to, but do you really enjoy the idea of "3 felonies a day"coming true because you don't think they'll come after you?

Could you give me a citation from the FTC regs, please? Based on what I've seen in those regs, your mom doesn't have to disclose anything because nobody has any reason to think that her opinion represents anything other than her opinion.

If your mom were known as an e-Book afficianado, or if her primary business was selling instructional materials for using Kindles, then yes she'd have to disclose or face penalties, but not if she's just 'some-random-mom'.

I don't disagree with the spirit of the proposed rules. The problem lies in the actual enforcement of the rules. For example, game sites (IGN, Game Trailers, etc) receive free, advance copies of games for review purposes all the time. Sometimes, they are actually paid to do reviews for games. What happens if one of the reviewers accidentally forgets to note this information in one of his reviews? It seems a bit frivolous to punish the reviewer financially or criminally for a simple mistake.

Another thing I have to ask, though, is why do we even need these rules in the first place? Are people so stupid as to not take another person's blog/review/etc with a grain of salt? It is common knowledge that companies often send their products to reviewers for free for review purposes. Why do reviewers need to tell us this painfully obvious information?

Originally posted by severusx:This is sorta like the royalty debate for internet radio vs. terrestrial radio. Apparently, the government thinks that since the internet is the "wild west" it needs more regulation that institutions that have existed for the last 70 years and are now fading into the limelight due to overwhelming ubiquitous access to free or near free alternatives online. I understand the desire to "protect" these traditional sources of information, but they either need to evolve or go extinct...

Um, you don't "fade into the [really freaking powerfully bright lights]", you fade into the night.

"in the limelight" means in the spotlight, because limelights are STILL used for that exact purpose, and before electric lighting, were used as stage footlights (and were the cause of many theater fires, because they operate by using a gas jet to heat calcium oxide until it glows....which gives off a VERY bright light"

Like others, I see nothing wrong with requiring the disclosure. There's already many regulations on advertising in place; when reviewers are paid, it's advertising. I'm most interested to see this applied to review sites, such as Yelp, rather than just bloggers. Many review sites try hard to keep paid shills from contaminating their ratings, but right now they don't have much of a club to keep the bastards at bay with.

Wow, lots of off the mark comments in this thread. Those saying "fine by me" or "seems right by the consumer" aren't seeing the bigger picture. Singling out one form of media over another when it comes to speech is wrong at best, unconstitutional at worst. The First Amendment most certainly does apply here, not because someone has a "right" to deceive readers, but because the government has no right to tell people what or how to write.

So that leaves us with what the first poster said: "apply it to everyone" and that seems OK, except who's going to enforce that and how? You're talking about an army of fact-checking bureaucrats poring over ever product review written, taking exception with every turn of phrase and every dime spent or collected. It's not only wrong, it's not feasible whatsoever.

The bottom line is that media consumers in this day and age -- it's always been true, but especially now -- must use critical thinking skills with everything they read, see or hear; and that we must hold the media outlets and writers out there responsible for what they do by supporting the good ones and tuning out the bad ones.

Originally posted by Naame:I really don't see any problem. There is nothing about these rules which prevents any product from being fairly advertised and reviewed. All that it does is help assist with the prevention of bias and corrupt reviews.

First amendment issues aside, this regulation is idiotic. Look at it this way- if I review a product that I got a copy of, I have to let everyone know. On the other hand, if I'm writing a review for a product that I've never actually used, then I can just say I never received a review copy (which is true), and the FTC thinks that's good for consumers.

We don't need FTC regulations, we need people to do some critical thinking and use due diligence.

Caveat Emptor.

The regulation stipulates ANY compensation, not just a free sample.

That means shills like Ed Bott are going to have to disclose how often Microsoft gives him complementary plane tickets, trade show tickets, etc. in exchange for licking M$'s ***hole on a tri-weekly basis.

This is going to TOTALLY destroy Microsoft's marketing strategy of deliberately cultivating journalists into partisan hacks that write only glowing reports of Microsoft's products and absolutely trash any competing software.

And I can't wait one moment for it to kick in -- both on-line and in the print media.

Originally posted by chronomitch:I don't disagree with the spirit of the proposed rules. The problem lies in the actual enforcement of the rules. For example, game sites (IGN, Game Trailers, etc) receive free, advance copies of games for review purposes all the time. Sometimes, they are actually paid to do reviews for games. What happens if one of the reviewers accidentally forgets to note this information in one of his reviews? It seems a bit frivolous to punish the reviewer financially or criminally for a simple mistake.

Another thing I have to ask, though, is why do we even need these rules in the first place? Are people so stupid as to not take another person's blog/review/etc with a grain of salt? It is common knowledge that companies often send their products to reviewers for free for review purposes. Why do reviewers need to tell us this painfully obvious information?

The regs are very broadly written. right now if your mom posts that she loves her new Kindle and forgets to mention she received it as a gift, the feds can come after her. Right now they're promising not to, but do you really enjoy the idea of "3 felonies a day"coming true because you don't think they'll come after you?

Could you give me a citation from the FTC regs, please? Based on what I've seen in those regs, your mom doesn't have to disclose anything because nobody has any reason to think that her opinion represents anything other than her opinion.

If your mom were known as an e-Book afficianado, or if her primary business was selling instructional materials for using Kindles, then yes she'd have to disclose or face penalties, but not if she's just 'some-random-mom'.

But heck, I may have mis-understood something in there.

"acting on behalf of the advertiser or its agent, such that the speaker’s statement is an "endorsement" that is part of an overall marketing campaign?" That is one test from the regs. Simply put a mom that gets a free teeth whitening cream sample and posts on her facebook that it works could be defined as an endorser acting as part of an overall marketing campaign. Maybe some-random-mom has a fairly well read blog on general issues but Amazon noticed she sometimes posts about her Kindle and determined that her readers are also in their market and give her a free one and just say what do you think? She gets it, posts a quick tweet and says hey this thing's nice. Suddenly she's a criminal because she didn't post up a full legal disclaimer.

My point is that this thing is broadly written, and if a blogger doesn't keep an up to date list of every bit of free swag they pick up or receive, they could very easily cross the line to illegality.

The regs are very broadly written. right now if your mom posts that she loves her new Kindle and forgets to mention she received it as a gift, the feds can come after her. Right now they're promising not to, but do you really enjoy the idea of "3 felonies a day"coming true because you don't think they'll come after you?

Could you give me a citation from the FTC regs, please? Based on what I've seen in those regs, your mom doesn't have to disclose anything because nobody has any reason to think that her opinion represents anything other than her opinion.

If your mom were known as an e-Book afficianado, or if her primary business was selling instructional materials for using Kindles, then yes she'd have to disclose or face penalties, but not if she's just 'some-random-mom'.

But heck, I may have mis-understood something in there.

"acting on behalf of the advertiser or its agent, such that the speaker’s statement is an "endorsement" that is part of an overall marketing campaign?" That is one test from the regs. Simply put a mom that gets a free teeth whitening cream sample and posts on her facebook that it works could be defined as an endorser acting as part of an overall marketing campaign.

The very next page of the regs (ricbach229's quote comes from the bottom of p. 8, btw) goes into detail and explains that if your mother doesn't regularly receive free stuff, she's not making an endorsement.

quote:

from footnote21 on p.9:Even if that consumer receives a single, unsolicited item from one manufacturer andwrites positively about it on a personal blog or on a public message board, the review is not likely to be deemed an endorsement, given the absence of a course of dealing with that advertiser (or others) that would suggest that the consumer is disseminating a “sponsored” advertising message.

Based on this footnote, so long as your mom isn't already associated with Amazon, she's almost certainly not going to be considered to be providing an endorsement.

quote:

ricbach229:My point is that this thing is broadly written, and if a blogger doesn't keep an up to date list of every bit of free swag they pick up or receive, they could very easily cross the line to illegality.

My point is that you appear not to have read much of the regs, and that going through them with a bit more care (particularly section 255, starting on p. 55) you'll see that the regulations are clearly intended to separate 'expert' from 'consumer endorsements, and that enforcement (which is currently by complaint only, and appears that it will remain so) will take circumstances into account.

Really this has all along been a solution looking for a problem. I think most people know that many review sites that really on advance review copies to make launch day reviews are beholden to the companies in one way or another. Video game reviews are a great example of this.

I don't think online media should have different rules in this regard than print media. I know not all users are savvy enough to know if a particular review is legit or not but most know. Not something that needs to be legislated.

Although to be honest, I DO really like the idea. I just don't think the rules are good ones.

Not trying to be dense, but the part you quoted only lays out a clear line at single item. Just the other day from a dentist visit I snagged three colgate products and a few Johnson and Johnson items. According to that snippet I'm merely "not likely" to be viewed as associated with Colgate or JNJ if I blog about them. Add in the kink that my wife used to work at Colgate a few years ago, does that now make me an agent/expert of toothpaste that needs to disclose the gift nature of my trial?

Based on your posting I'd also like to know how they define associated. Does a blog ad that the hosting company serves make her an associate? How can she know ahead of time if she is an associate?

Anytime you have to say "almost certainly" when describing legality of an action or speech, it's a sloppy law and will be abused. The Feds should not be in the business of monitoring tweets and blog postings. Maybe it's my accounting background, things are pretty well dictated to us, we're given bright line tests that are pass/fail. This reg is a huge list of pass/fails that ultimately are going to make it so all bloggers are required to make the gov't disclosures just to be safe.

Originally posted by ricbach229:Not trying to be dense, but the part you quoted only lays out a clear line at single item. Just the other day from a dentist visit I snagged three colgate products and a few Johnson and Johnson items. According to that snippet I'm merely "not likely" to be viewed as associated with Colgate or JNJ if I blog about them. Add in the kink that my wife used to work at Colgate a few years ago, does that now make me an agent/expert of toothpaste that needs to disclose the gift nature of my trial?

Based on your posting I'd also like to know how they define associated. Does a blog ad that the hosting company serves make her an associate? How can she know ahead of time if she is an associate?

Read the regs (PDF) and find out for yourself. Put simply, your wife working for Colgate years ago is irrelevant to your current status.The regs tell you pretty clearly how to define someone associated with a company, as well as what constitutes an expert.

quote:

ricbach229:Anytime you have to say "almost certainly" when describing legality of an action or speech, it's a sloppy law and will be abused. The Feds should not be in the business of monitoring tweets and blog postings. Maybe it's my accounting background, things are pretty well dictated to us, we're given bright line tests that are pass/fail. This reg is a huge list of pass/fails that ultimately are going to make it so all bloggers are required to make the gov't disclosures just to be safe.

I said 'almost certainly' because I'm not an expert in this area of the law, and because I'm careful. OTOH, you appear willing to call it a sloppy law without having read it in any meaningful way. You'll see in section 255 that they make it pretty clear what they're going for, and some random blogger who happens to love them some Kindle isn't it.